ST JOSEPH'S CONVENT CHANDANNAGAR EDUCATINAL SOCITY.,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T. (OSD), CIR- 2,HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

section 13(1)(c ) of the Act and accordingly brought the Excess of Income over Expenditure amounting to Rs. 77,39,624/- to tax. He also disallowed

DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as an result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 11 In the instant case, the assessee had furnished the explanation to the assessee by filing a revised computation of income offering

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards export commission paid by the assessee to the non-resident was rightly deleted.' 16. When the transaction does not atract the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, then there is no question of applying Explanation 4 to Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue has no case and the Tax Case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards export commission paid by the assessee to the non-resident was rightly deleted.' 16. When the transaction does not atract the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, then there is no question of applying Explanation 4 to Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue has no case and the Tax Case

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

disallowance of Rs.1,72,38,40S/- is deleted. This ground of appeal succeeds and is therefore, allowed.” 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s instant former grievance. There is no dispute about the assessee having paid the impugned commission amount to its overseas agents without deducting TDS. The Revenue reiterates the Assessing Officer’s findings that

KATHLEEN CONFECTIONERS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-32, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

c) Paris Elysees India Private Limited Vs. DCIT Order dated 20.02.2023 in ITA No. 357/JPR/2022 11. The contention as canvassed by the ld. counsel is that the Assessing Officer could have disallowed the aforesaid employees’ contribution to ESI/PF being deposited after the due date under the relevant statute, only in an assessment carried

I.T.O(E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. FUTURE EDUCATION RESCARCH TRUST., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & C.O.No.69/Kol/2013 (A/O Ita No.1031/Kol/2013) Assessment Year:2009-10

13(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.1031/Kol/2013 & CO. 69/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 ITO(E)-II, Kol. Vs. Future Education & Research Trust. Page 4 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) whereas assessee challenged the assessment proceedings on technical grounds as detailed under :- i) The AO has concluded the entire income tax proceedings in two hearings only

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 29/09/2016, for the Assessment Year 2011-12. This order was communicated to the assessee on 7th October, 2016. 2. Facts in brief:- In the Transfer Pricing (TP) analysis and report issued by the assessee, at page 5, Point Nos. 1.2 to 1.4, read as follows:- “1.2.1. PricewaterhouseCoopers

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

c) following the decision of this Court, CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 155/226 Taxman 115/48 taxmann.com 48 (Mad.), the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source, when the non-resident agent provides services outside India on payment of commission. 5.2 The contention of the Revenue is that such services are attracted by Explanation

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

c) following the decision of this Court, CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 155/226 Taxman 115/48 taxmann.com 48 (Mad.), the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source, when the non-resident agent provides services outside India on payment of commission. 5.2 The contention of the Revenue is that such services are attracted by Explanation

M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

disallowed. As regards intention of the assessee, the concealment of income has been detected in action of search & seizure and as such malafide is apparent. In view of the above and the Explanation 5A, the assessee’s explanations are not satisfactory. In view of above, I am satisfied that this a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance of speculation loss of Rs.28,83,6322/- was deleted by the CIT(A). Asst. Year: 2012-13 Returned income under Rs. 1,68,765/- section 139 Returned income under Rs. 8,76,720/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 7,50,000/- section 132(4) Addition under section Rs. 1,37,648/- 14A Assessed income Rs.10,14,368/- Penalty

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance of speculation loss of Rs.28,83,6322/- was deleted by the CIT(A). Asst. Year: 2012-13 Returned income under Rs. 1,68,765/- section 139 Returned income under Rs. 8,76,720/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 7,50,000/- section 132(4) Addition under section Rs. 1,37,648/- 14A Assessed income Rs.10,14,368/- Penalty

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards export commission paid by the assessee to the non-resident was rightly deleted.' When the transaction does not atract the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, then there 16. is no question of applying Explanation 4 to Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue has no case and the Tax Case

SINGHANIA & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

disallowed the payment made towards these funds by relying on CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 and by taking note of the relying on CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 and by taking note of the relying on CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 and by taking note of the decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

13. Since the additional ground projects the grievances of the assessee which arises from the order of CIT(A) and facts available on record, the same is admitted for adjudication keeping in view the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co.Ltd. vs CIT 229 ITR 383 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

13. Since the additional ground projects the grievances of the assessee which arises from the order of CIT(A) and facts available on record, the same is admitted for adjudication keeping in view the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co.Ltd. vs CIT 229 ITR 383 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

13. A perusal of sub-clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

13. A perusal of sub-clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case